Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
Date: 12 Feb 2006 14:11:09 -0800
Message-ID: <1139782269.593202.200220_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Frank Hamersley wrote:
> dawn wrote:
<snip>
> Personally I don't feel that characterising
> your approach as chaotic under the moniker of agile is unrealistic at
> all. Feel free to prove me wrong but your penchant for "bang for the
> buck" as a prime consideration combined with a dislike of the rigidity
> of the RM is anarchy as I see it.
I just got an e-mail from an IBM U2 customer who said that one of the
senior Pick architects "once said Pick was a 'liberal humanistic'
database as opposed to a
'technocratic fascist' database"
> > One analogy I have used before (perhaps in this forum, so apologies)
> > is that there are clear regulations for such things as having a
> > "plumbing access panel" for various plumbing. But what if you could
> > not put up a wall that must have such an access panel until the
> > access panel was in it first?
>
> Classic - and largely the basis for IT's feeble batting average - see
> below for a real world non IT example of what thinking like this leads unto.
>
> > Wouldn't it be easier to put up the wall and then cut out the access
> > panel in most cases? Wouldn't it hinder the builders to be told that
> > at every point in time all regulations for the final product must be
> > adhered to? Sometimes s/w dev projects are like this when the dbms,
> > constraints and all, are already in place when application coding
> > starts.
>
> Let me relate a non IT stuffup that demolishes (gee I love the English
> language) both your analogy and any relevance of it to IT.
>
> Down under most (if not all) CBD buildings are constructed of reinforced
> concrete (unlike the USA where there is a proclivity for steel frame as
> I understand things). Some several years ago during the construction of
> a 5 floor building, the air-con guys were ducting the 3rd floor when
> they discovered a big bit of concrete right where they thought the plans
> showed a duct passing through.
>
> Being agile thinkers they immediately assumed that the form workers had
> failed to reserve the space needed and called for the core
> drillers/concrete cutters who had a hell of a time cutting through lots
> of steel reinforcing...but they got the job done.
>
> Shortly after the duct was finished the project engineer had an
> apoplexy! The reason - the beam they had cut through was a principal
> part of the structural design to allow construction of another 5 floors
> on top of the building at a later date if needed. With the steel now
> cut the beam was useless and the building was limited to 5 floors and
> never to reach its full potential. No doubt the building owners were
> ropable and sued the pants of somebody!
>
> Whether they had old out-of-date plans or mis-read the correct ones is
> not material. The real problem stems from a culture where a mentality
> just like you proclaim says just cut the hole later!
Oddly, or not so oddly, enough, I see this as an analogy to a culture where one group does one thing and tosses the spec over the wall to the other, rather than them all doing construction together. So I see this story as supporting my point. ;-)
> If people were not
> licenced with this style of thinking they surely would be a whole lot
> less likely to cut the duct without first seriously considering the
> overall design and consulting widely.
> >>> Your association with the toilet is facile (sorry to be harsh) at
> >>> best given a site portaloo is mandated by regulation (here at
> >>> least).
> >
> > OK, I went with the plumbing access panel instead. Does that work
> > any better?
>
> Nope.
>
> >>> Instead what is reasonable to consider is ... 1. the foundations
> >>> are constructed before walls are built,
> >
> > Now there's a good topic of conversation. I'll refrain just 'cause I
> > have a life to get back to.
>
> I guess with the common use of timber frame home constructions in your
> part of the world there is a whole industry in building the walls on a
> factory floor "before" the foundations are laid. What is the basis for
> your topic and interest?
>
> >>> 2. the services are installed before the slab is poured, 3. the
> >>> walls are constructed to load bearing capacity (if not complete)
> >>> before the roof is constructed, 4. the roof is covered before the
> >>> plaster is rendered. ...and so it goes.
> >>>
> >>> All these processes are simply common sense. Neglect them at your
> >>> peril. Just ask the builder who fails to install the plumbing
> >>> before the concrete is poured about how cost effective core
> >>> drilling is. Builders who stuff up in this way go out of
> >>> business but in IT there is no reliable sanction mechanism to
> >>> ensure that this occurs.
> >
> > There is disagreement on what must go first.
>
> Not in the IT sphere - our disagreement is primarily your sanctioning of
> an approach that lets the developer construct any old domain depending
> on how they feel today
Unlike some agile methodology folks, I do like to see a pretty clear statement of requirements up front, even if including a good process for change from the very start and only requiring low-level design for the current phase before starting it.
> whereas my insistence that at least a bit of
> rigour helps ensure (but doesn't guarantee sadly) the outcome is viable.
I agree with rigour in the process. I don't want the tools to constrain developers unnecessarily.
> > For example, given the
> > right tools you can write the UI for a piece of software first and
> > then put the db behind it.
>
> What does that prove? Sure I can envisage doing it that way, but I
> probably wouldn't accept the UI was completed until the DB had been
> integrated and tested etc.
> And if the UI designer happened to come up
> with some whacky design (often due to an expanded ego or simple
> inexperience) that did not lend itself to being persisted efficiently
> under RM constraints
> then they would be making the required changes and
> still expected to deliver the business requirements. To paraphrase your
> approach it is simply to let them do what they like and sort out any
> mess later - because you can!
>
> >>> Building systems in IT is no different. Where I do have a bone
> >>> to pick (pun intended) is with a methodology or tool that
> >>> facilitates or encourages deviant behaviour. IMO agile is not
> >>> about bending or breaking established rules but about
> >>> responsiveness.
> >
> > There are so few established rules in our industry.
>
> Too true!
>
> > I suspect you
> > and I could disagree on a number of such "rules." Cheers! --dawn
>
> Given that there are so few and we disagree at least on some that sort
> of insists we are almost diametrically opposed - does it not?
and on opposite ends of the earth too. I suspect we have some agreement however, for example, both thinking that good data models are important? Cheers! --dawn Received on Sun Feb 12 2006 - 23:11:09 CET